On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:25:34 +0000, David Longley
<David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
} In article <qlc430lafacpd4ifcsp85rbdcoee0pmvoj at 4ax.com>, Doktor DynaSoar
} <targeting at OMCL.mil> writes
} >On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 07:29:28 GMT, "k p Collins"
} ><kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
} >} I'm 'curious' - are folks waiting for me to
} >} respond?
} >Nobody is waiting for anything.
} >} Everything I have to say about Neuropharmacology
} >} has been in AoK, Ap9 all along ["functional multiplexing"]
} >If among that you have the specific answers regarding the affinities
} >of the specified drugs to the monoaminergic transporters, then feel
} >free. If not, then it has nothing to do with the question.
} I once worked with DSP-4 (N-2-chloroethyl-N-ethyl-2-bromobenzylamine
} hydrochloride) as an alternative to 6-OHDA) whilst looking at forebrain
} NE' (and other monomaines') role in various aspects of learning. It
} looks like the term "transporter" is being used here as a synonym for
} (presynaptic) "reuptake receptor". Is that the case? I used to use DMI,
} 5-7 DHT, but not MDMA in control groups. I thought these ligands were
} somewhat dirty and bound to lots of receptors - is this what you're
} interested in, ie their relative affinities (sorry if this has all been
} said earlier).
I'm pretty sure we were talking about the same phenomena, but possibly
coming from the more functional, whereas you're coming from the more
structural. The answer would be the same -- the affinity is what it
} This is really a trivial question for my benefit, as I expect matters
} have moved on considerably since my day (although I do try to keep up
} with some of it).
The original posted may or may not still be reading. If not, I know
him from elsewhere and can alert him to relevant material.